businesses would probably save thousands per year if they used linux and other free software.
- able to use equipment for longer
- no subscription payments for all their software: office suit, pdf editors, etc
- fewer security issues
Small businesses in particular would benefit. Yet you never see it in the real world, they all pay tribute to big tech. Why?
Imagine if instead they donated 20% of what they would pay for big tech to FOSS projects.
Other urls found in this thread:
bleepingcomputer.com
twitter.com
Most people who recognize that are not invested enough in their jobs to suggest it and lobby for it.
They already use it, for servers
Modern offices are mostly concered with the illusion of being productive and wanting to improve.
If you dare suggest a superior alternative, you're fucked kiddo
because
>shit goes wrong with windoze
>blame the microsoft pajeets
>call the microsoft pajeets
>run sfc /scannow and reinstall windows
>shit goes wrong with gnu
>can't blame the microsoft pajeet
>manager blames you
>fired
Yeah, they could use all the great integrated Free Software alternatives to Active Directory, Azure Devops, Office 365 & Teams & Sharepoint...
linux has it's place, running on servers
that's the only place it's actually good at what it does
> OP never worked in good company
>is another delusion gnufags forget that android is gnu based
we dumped all our custom built apps that required low maintenance for microsoft trash and I am pretty sure it is because the sales team wanted to make inroads with M$FT.
Sales bros and thots control all major decisions made in business.
You're not wrong. I have never worked for big companies. Everywhere I've worked until recently was
Nope. All of the features they need are premium featuresets that are not replicated by "free" software.
there's lots of reasons this doesn't happen, but it largely boils down to the immense inertia corporations have especially large ones, and perception of what makes software professional
way too much work to retrain all the drones to use new software when microsoft/adobe/etc has already cemented their own as defacto standard. way too much work to replace these professional bloated software suites with a dozen foss alternatives.
a lot of industries also use software with no existing or adequate foss alternatives, like architecture or medicine.
they'd save money in the long term but most business models don't give a fuck unless an action will see substantial returns within 4 years
they do use linux they use it to run windows vm's for the worker's thin clients.
I'm happy to answer this:
>You don't need a master's degree in Computer Science to guarantee the product will work (keyword guarantee)
>You're not leveraging your reputation on charity work
>Microsoft, and other companies, release full-featured developer frameworks instead of VIM and C.
There are a shit ton of other reasons, but I feel like I'm wasting my time.
Because software licensing costs are basically irrelevant for most companies compared to other costs of doing business and using software other than whatever is industry standard and what they can easily hire people trained with would just introduce other costs that are harder to quantify.
Small businesses will more often use free software, though usually not for desktop OS unless it's a programming company or something.
Hardware costs will be the same, or probably higher due to compatibility issues unless you're going to force all of your employees to learn some meme tiling WM and use trash PCs from craigslist. Windows pro license only costs $200 over the lifetime of the hardware and that's if you pay full price for it.
>businesses would probably save thousands per year if they used linux and other free software
Not quite. Most employees are used to microsoft software (it even is a requirement for most jobs). Companies would have to spend a lot of money in training for the new tools. It would cost a lot of time (i.e. money) to migrate even a medium sized company to alternative free software.
And even if you could or your had a small business, free software is not actually that good or secure when compared to paid alternatives like microshit's.
Also, free software rarely (if ever) has tech support from someone competent. Believe it or not, it's cheaper to pay just to have someone to blame when things go wrong.
Everything has a reason to be. If free software isn't dominating the enterprise IT is for a damn good reason.
You think of free software worked better than paid software, someone wouldn't have sold the idea to business owners? Those fuckers run around for every penny they can get.
So, in logical conclusion, no. Free software is not better nor cheaper than paid software for businesses.
Guess what forms the absolute majority of our corporate expenses? Payroll.
Now guess what's my opinion on linux.
Also, truth be told, free software tends to fail just as much if not more than paid software. So you aren't saving yourself headaches either.
>Everything has a reason to be. If free software isn't dominating the enterprise IT is for a damn good reason.
i dont disagree with your post in general, but the supposed rationality or efficiency of businesses is wildly overestimated. they're plagued with bureaucracy, incompetence, good ol boy driven leadership and decisions, and (for publicly traded companies particularly) a very short-sighted view of the financial gains/losses on business decisions
Where are the savings though? Windows is "free" (included in the price of hardware, but good luck getting a non-CTO system without a preloaded edition of Windows so you're eating that cost regardless) and the basic bitch plan of Office 365 is six bucks per seat per month, and that gets you an "industry standard" suite including email hosting that any idiot can operate and IT monkeys fluent in Microsoft grow on fucking trees so getting assistance with setup and problems is cheap and easy as hell.